A couple of weeks ago, I gave a lecture on Critical Thinking, argument mapping and social media to some first year undergrads. The following notes from that lecture are the introduction to a series of more detailed slides on the positive and negative effects of social media and an argument mapping project which I am undertaking. I was about to file these notes away but thought maybe they might make a nice, short, blog post.

Good Afternoon!!

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you were to “like” everything you saw on social media? What do you think would happen if you were to “like” everything that passed through your social media feed. Well, a New York developer and all round extremely cool looking dude, Rameet Chawla found out. Rameet built a script and an app that would do just that for him; it “liked” everything that passed his Instagram feed. Now, Lovematically has been blocked by Instagram, but Rameet says that while his script was running his “followers” grew by over 30 per day, by over 2,700 in three months; he got invited to more parties; people recognised him more and stopped him in the street and his friends begged him to post more, so that they could “like” his content, in return.

Now we might think, while we sit there, aimlessly “liking”, that this activity is not important, but let me tell you, our posts, shares and likes are; they matter. In fact, they tap into some of the very elements that make us human: our desires, our anxieties, and our joys.

The attraction of social media is not just in our heads. It is also physical…it is real.

Our brains produce two chemicals, dopamine and oxytocin which explain part of the reason we are so drawn. In the past, we thought that dopamine was simply the neurohormone responsible for pleasure, but now we realise that this chemical messenger plays an important role regulating mood, behavior, our cognitions and even our sleep. It is also associated with motivation and reward. So, we now know that dopamine actually creates want. Dopamine plays an enormous role in our desires and our searching. We also now know that this vitally important nerotransmitter is stimulated by the unpredictable; that its production is encouraged by reward cues and information clues – THE conditions of social media? Right?

Now, it’s quite controversial, but the pull of social media has been compared with the pull of cigarettes and alcohol. More specifically though, it has been found that young social media users are more likely to give in to longings or cravings to use social media than to succumb to other desires.

Then there’s our new friend, Oxytocin, the “cuddle” hormone which we met last in our lectures on Attachment. We remember that Oxytocin is released by the brain when we hug or when we kiss. But it is also released when we….Tweet? I just read an article where the author engaged on Twitter for 10 minutes and within that time his blood oxytocin levels increased by over 13%. Not only this, but his stress hormones cortisol and ACTH went down 10.8% and 14.9%, respectively.

That kindness that often comes with Oxytocin – the lowered stress, the empathy, the generosity, the love, and the trust, also comes with social media. Studies have shown that social media users are more trusting than average internet users. In fact, a typical Facebook user is 43% more likely, than other internet users, to feel that others can be trusted. Thanks, in part, to oxytocin and dopamine, social media encourages some great feelings, but it is also hard to resist.

So now, let’s look at some of the major activities we get up to on social media and try to work out what psychological strings are being pulled by each of them.

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone here that we like to talk about ourselves. In fact, it is estimated that up to 40% of all human speech is humans talking about themselves. On social media and in social media posts, though, this figure doubles. It has been shown that in social media posts, we talk about ourselves 80% of the time. That’s huge, right? Why do we think that is? Well, it seems that talking face-to-face is “costly”; it’s complex and involved. Between reading other peoples’ body language and facial cues, and trying to think about what we are about to say, we just don’t have time. Online, though, we do! Online, we have time to create, to construct, to polish and refine. In what psychologists call “self-presentation”, we monitor and audit our profiles to best position ourselves – the way we want to be seen. And….this also makes us feel good. Researchers have found that the simple act of viewing your own Facebook profile can increase your self-esteem.

But, if we love talking about ourselves so much, what is the reason behind us wanting to share something belonging to someone else? What makes us want to share other people’s news. Well, evolutionary psychologists tell us that passing along information is hardwired into us and it has been shown that the simple thought of sharing social information actually activates the reward centres of the brain.

Like with most things, it starts with the self; most people say that they share to let others know who they are and what they care about, but the main reason we share is so that we maintain connections. And again, there’s method in our madness; when we share the right kind of content, and when people react positively to it, we feel better about ourselves.

Liking and “favouriting” are also very important to us. When we think, say of Facebook with over 2 billion active monthly users, we almost automatically think of the “Like” button. In fact, since Facebook first implemented it in 2009, this feature has been used 1.13 trillion times with no sign of stopping. And again, why do we do this? We do this to confirm our closeness, to maintain relationships; we like and favourite each other’s posts to invest in our relationships. On top of this, there is a reciprocity effect; we feel that we have to give back to the people who have given” to us. We want to even up the scales. You see this reciprocity all the time. On Instagram, for example, when we receive a tag or a DM, it makes us feel compelled to send one back. When you receive a “like” on your profile, you’ll probably feel a little pull to reciprocate in some small way, whether that’s liking back or sharing something small.

So, “liking” and sharing are important and they effect us in essential ways. Commenting is also incredibly powerful. There is a theory, first proposed by Hardin and Higgins in 1996, that we have a “shared reality”. This theory holds, in very broad terms, that our complete experience of something is affected by how and if we share that experience with others; that we are motivated to share our reality with others in order to establish, maintain and regulate relationships, and to help us to perceive ourselves and our environment as stable, predictable, and controllable. Not only this, but 85% of us say that when we read another person’s response on a topic it helps us to process and understand the topic better. So, in theory “comments” help us to understand, but they can also help to change our minds. One study on news sites, for example, showed that comments that attacked the author, with no facts at all, are enough to change the readers perception of a topic. On the other hand, polite reviews – even when they’re negative – can cause brands to be seen as more honest and wholesome. In one study it was found that users were willing to pay more for a watch when they saw polite, but negative comments, than when reviews were removed. Given what has been happening in world politics over the last year, this is important information and very important research.

Let’s see….what else do we do with this technology….Oh! I know….we take pictures of ourselves…

In the past, portraits were about status, about controlling the way our image was portrayed and perceived. Today though, portraits in the form of “selfies”, are increasingly becoming a way for us to figure out who we are. Similar to the concept of “shared reality” I spoke about earlier, there is a concept in psychology called the “looking glass self” – Bear with me here – this concept, proposed by Cooley in 1902 states that a person’s self or their self concept grows out of their social interactions with others; that our view of ourselves comes from thinking about how others perceive us. So in theory, how we see ourselves does not come from who we really are, but rather from how we believe others see us; our self-image is formed as the reflections of the response and evaluations of others in our environment. So, it could be argued that our fixation with taking selfies helps us to create and maintain a stable self-concept…or that we need our reflection from others to tell us who we actually are.

That said, selfies also work because we pay more attention to faces than we do to anything else. Profile picture are the first place the eye is drawn to on Facebook and other social media sites. On Instagram, pictures with human faces are 38% more likely to get a “like” and 32% more likely to receive a comment. Eye tracking studies show that online, we follow the eyes of the people we see on screen. Indeed, viewing faces can even make us more empathic. In an experiment conducted in the x-ray department of an Israeli hospital, patient photos were added to x-rays of patients and it was found that radiologists reported that were more empathetic and indeed they completed more thorough examinations of the patient x-rays.

When we are talking, face-to-face with each other, we may not realise it, but we mimic each other’s expressions in conversation. This emotional contagion plays a huge role in how we communicate and how we build connectedness with each other. We don’t have this facility online, but we try to recreate it using emoticons and emojis. Today, over 92% of the online population use some of the 2,700 emojis in communication to better express themselves and to help others to understand the meaning of their words. On any given day, over 60 million emojis are sent on Facebook alone, 5 billion are sent on Messenger, by 2015 half of all Instragram posts contained an emoji and over 10 billion emojis are sent around the world every day.

But if we are going to talk about the psychology of social media, we have to talk about the effects it may be having on users, both the negative and the positive.

Some say that social media is making us more lonely, more isolated and more depressed and the science behind those findings is solid. I would argue, though, that the media itself doesn’t change us – It is an amplifier of our very human tendencies – social media turns these tendencies up a little. Take social comparison, for example. We all have a tendency to compare ourselves to others and to evaluate our worth based on comparisons we make to other people. In the normal course of events, this can cause insecurity and can effect mood and worse. But, in the social media world where we share our best news, our best photos, our highest accomplishments, these feelings can be magnified. We seem to be constantly comparing ourselves to a stream of great parties, new clothes, handsome boyfriends, beautiful girlfriends, sporting excellence, academic achievements. And it’s not just on Facebook, Instagram -envy is rife and even on the cosiest of all social media – Pintrest – there is a problem. There was a survey done recently of over 7,000 U.S. “moms” who used Pintrest and it was revealed the 42% claimed to suffer from “Pintrest stress” – a worry that they are not creative or crafty enough.

All that being said, social media can also be a force for good; it can unite us. I’m sure many of you have shared a loss or a personal challenge online on social media; you, most likely, received the resounding support that can come from friends and even from people you might not expect. When we are feeling low or insecure, turning to our friends on Facebook can provide us comfort and it has been shown to offer more comfort than any other type of self- affirmation activity. It has actually been shown that time spent using social media is correlated to “virtual empathy” which has been shown to carry over into the real word.

So, while some research has shown that social media may magnify our insecurities and draw us in to its web, I like to think that social media is about the good in the world. It’s about seeing that good in ourselves and others, acknowledging that good and sharing it with others. Social media shrinks our world, allowing us to get closer, a little more empathetic, maybe closer to who we truly want to be.

Disclaimer: Again these notes, introducing a more in-depth series of slides, were delivered to a first year undergrad class in their first semester.

In the early history of Greece, people would assemble in open public spaces which were set aside as places where free-born citizens could gather for public announcements or to discuss politics. As time passed, the nature of the Agora changed, and this open area attracted merchants (kapeloi) and artisans who wanted to sell their wares to the public. The agora of Athens, where philosophers came to ask of Athenians their understanding of life, was where young Plato heard Socrates speak for the first time. Literally, an “assembly” or “gathering place”, what the Romans referred to as Res Publica, this type of public space has, for the sake of this piece, its modern equivalent in social media.

When we use public spaces (parks, playgrounds, or public squares) there are constraints, but there are also opportunities; there is organisation, but there is freedom of action. We can, within reason, go and come as we please, and we can do whatever we like, within certain agreed limits. Equally, when we think of the agora, when there is no one around, it is passive; stalls are empty, traders and the public are nowhere to be seen. The agora is neither benign nor nefarious.

When we imagine social media as this gathering place, a place for connection, conversation, debate, and sharing, this agora is not junk food, narcotics, alcohol or gambling. It is simply a place where people meet. The place is not addictive, we don’t react to the place the same as we would to cocaine. When the agora is quiet, it does not impinge upon our time, it does not make us thin, it does not tell us to do things. A space doesn’t make inappropriate remarks about people’s weight, nor does the place harass our children.

Without the artisans and the traders, without the demos and the philosophers, the agora is silent. However, the agora provides opportunities and its operation is governed by understanding. What is, at times, forgotten, is that our behaviour in this space is guided and dependent on mores of etiquette; these guide us and help us interact with others. There are ways to do things, ways of being in the agora, similar to the ways of being in the world, that direct us. So, just as knowing where to go in public and who it is permissible to talk to, respect, knowledge, (self)discipline and responsibility, help us to enjoy all that public spaces have to teach and all that we can learn while there.

Those of us blessed with children know that, if we send them into the agora, we inform them that, alas, some public spaces are subject to abuse and exploitation. At times, traders take advantage of customers, philosophers sometimes espouse a philosophy that we do not agree with, and the demos can become unruly. We warn our children not to talk to strangers, we tell our teenagers to stay away from alcohol and drugs, we tell our young people to be careful. But we let them go there

The social media agora is incredible, rich with ideas, creativity and expression. An agora of communities and cultures, but like any other, one with risk. It provides people with a space where interactions can be modelled and tested, where social mores can be challenged in a safe space, surrounded by the like-minded, by friends. From this assembly, bounded by group defined mores, identities are formed, alliances are forged, and relationships are maintained.

The agora can seem noisy, feral and dangerous. The things that happen there, unfamiliar and unrecognisable. To the demos, it is simply the agora and, as such, it is not something that happens; it is a place of involvement, of exploration, of learning, of attachments, of emotional regulation, of experimentation, and of adaptation. In essence, the social media agora has become an environment helping young people to navigate and find their way in the world.

Up into the cherry tree
Who should climb but little me?
I held the trunk with both my hands
And looked abroad in foreign lands.

I saw the next door garden lie,
Adorned with flowers, before my eye,
And many pleasant places more
That I had never seen before.

I saw the dimpling river pass
And be the sky’s blue looking-glass;
The dusty roads go up and down
With people tramping in to town.

If I could find a higher tree
Farther and farther I should see,
To where the grown-up river slips
Into the sea among the ships,

To where the roads on either hand
Lead onward into fairy land,
Where all the children dine at five,
And all the playthings come alive.

To help understand the social media landscape, it is sometimes useful to imagine different social media users as citizens of “Foreign Lands”. If we look at digital technology users as existing in separate countries, with separate languages, laws, and customs, we begin to understand differences in usage, but we also start to gain clarity around the attitudes which one set of users hold about the other.

From this perspective, we can imagine adult digital technology use: practical, efficient, business-like, productive, serious. Here, newly developed technology is functional. Valuable hardware allows for communication, software is used industriously, social media helps to make business contacts and to retain business relationships and social networking is one-to-one, relationship maintenance. When content is created, it is purposeful and solemn. The self-censored, mature self is presented carefully.

In another country, digital technology provides an opportunity for “play”. Technology is used frivolously, creatively, messily. Hardware and its value matters little. Software is used incessantly, social media helps to maintain close friendships, social networking and content creation is one-to-one and one-to-many. The online self changes, it amuses and, oftentimes disappears after 10 seconds. In this fun land, citizens compare themselves to others, they aspire to ideals, they obsess over image, they emote, and they have fun.

There is a third country, landlocked by both these countries. Here, is the best of both worlds. Citizens were born and raised here and while there are borders, they are not “hard borders”. Movement between countries is permitted; it is even encouraged. The chief export from this country to their neighbours has been digital technology. Here, valuable technology is used, equally for its functionality and productivity and for its playfulness and frivolousness. Software allows users to maintain relationships at numerous levels; close personal ties and more informal business contacts. “Friends” number in the hundreds. Residents of this land “invented” social networking and so, are familiar with its nuances and capabilities; content creation comes naturally and flows from the user. Social media applications were adopted and adapted by these nationals, in fact, most application design is by and for these burghers.

Seeing the landscape like this allows us, in the first place, to explore each. We can examine the citizens; we can almost look at them ethnographically. It is also possible from this vantage point to position ourself in the world of the other. We can look at each of the “lands” from the perspective of another land. How do serious people view the frivolous? How do the unconcerned see the serious and the messy? Importantly, it is also possible to see whether our attitudes, laws and customs apply in the foreign land of another. We can imagine, as a tourist, what it would be like to impose our customs, laws, morality and fears on the behaviour of the other and we can even see if our ways of being necessarily apply here.

Think for a moment of an article published on line by the Independent in the UK, where an addiction expert is quoted as saying that giving a young person a smartphone is like giving them a gram of cocaine or a bottle of wine. Leaving aside the fact that this statement is made without any supporting evidence, isn’t it fair to ask whether this person is imposing her beliefs on the residents of a “Foreign Land”? Is it fair to say that this person is speaking to the residents of her own country about the residents of another country; one which she has never visited, one where they speak a language she doesn’t understand?

Making statements like these is deeply unfair. It terrorises parents, while at the same time, diminishing their parenting. It is disingenuous to young social media users, making it seem as though their online activities are somehow nefarious, illicit and dangerous. And, it trivialises substance abuse and addiction. When we make statements about the outcomes of social media use, we really need to do better.

In considering a framework for research into wellbeing and developmental outcomes of young people, in the context of their relationship with social media, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983; Bronfenbrenner & Morrris, 1989) provides a useful perspective. Given the ubiquity of the media and young people’s seeming immersion in it, the significance which Bronfenbrenner places on daily or “molar” activities is particularly useful. In outlining, for instance, how “molar” activities are a reflection of development, differences in age, gender, context, time and place are focused on. Indeed, when considering development, how it is influenced and what it influences, ability, skills, behaviour, relationships and the development of identity all have a place.

A key concern of social media researchers in the last few years, for example, has been “time spent” using social media. Time is seen as a useful metric by which to make assumptions about associations between platforms and the psychosocial lives of users. If we take an ecological perspective, “molar” activities, which necessarily include social media use, are both a cause and a consequence of development. Young social media users reason, decide and choose how to spend their time and these decisions are based on their goals, interests and temperament. Not only this, but these decisions are not made in a vacuum, the young person’s context, family situation, social relationships, all play significant roles in time spent, whether use is active or passive, skilled or not. Additionally, Weisner (2002) identifies dimensions of activity settings where the culture of young people emerges; these could also be included in this ecosystem. These include others who are present when the activity is occurring, what the activity is, why and how the activity is carried out.

Bronfenbenner allows us to see young social media users situated in a multi-layered context. From here we see users subject to influences that operate in their daily lives; from immediate to more abstracted contextual forces. The context in which the young user moves, is seen as a process, rather than an a processor. So, when we consider time as a metric to examine associations between social media use and wellbeing or developmental outcomes, not only would age and gender be considered, but recognition would also be given to the social class (what type of equipment or connectivity the user can afford), the device, the connectivity provided, the affordances and constraints of the life of the young person, who is being connected to and when, where these connections are being made and why and, importantly, what type of activity is occurring. If this were not complex enough, the ecological system requires us to think of the bidirectionality of contextual influences. So, rather than imagining social media users as passive recipients of content and being effected, we see them actively shaping their social media experiences, the social media landscape and consequently, their development.

Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model.

Bronfenbrenners Ecological Developmental Model frames thinking about young social media users, consequences of use and interactions with other systems in the ecology.

Microsystems: The young social media user (individual characteristics, personality, temprament) sits at the innermost level of the system. This system involves interactions with peers, family, education provider and neighbourhood. Positioning internet technology, social media or different platforms here, helps to consider user/family, user/peer, user/school, user/platform contexts when thinking about wellbeing or developmental outcomes. We can also imagine interactions between this level and other levels. Furthermore, when one considers that each social media platform offers the user different social media experiences, with different affordances, one could imagine discrete microsystems for each platform.

Mesosystems: At the meso level, connections with other social contexts are made. At this level, those from the user’s microsystem interact with other nodes of influence; a friend may attend a different school or college and interact with others who do not belong to the user’s network. Similarly, parents, teachers and other influential adults within the microsysytem can interact with each other, bringing back to the microsystem artefacts of those interactions, thereby influencing interactions within the microsystem. It is easy to imagine Facebook “friends” interacting with others in their own separate social networks.

Exosystems: Young people are often effected by influences which are outside their control and experience. In the exosystem influences like parental employment, school internet policy, and government regulation will effect social media use and the outcomes. For example, the type of technology available to the young person, if not in employment, is dependent on the employment status of a parent and if they can afford to purchase a smartphone or afford high-speed broadband. Government policy around availability of certain platforms effects usage and effects; certain governments restrict access to Facebook, WahatsApp etc., while others provide citizens with unlimited, free highspeed broadband. Both of these policy decisions effect users.

Macrosystems: At the more abstract level, wellbeing and developmental outcomes can be influenced by the legal, political and regulatory systems along with the values within the community, attitudes and norms. Importantly, again here, one should remember the bidirectioality of the ecological system. So, norms, attitudes, and values of a young social media user are influenced by others, but the norms, attitudes and values of young people can, in turn, influence others.

An ecological perspective highlights the complexity of researching wellbeing and developmental outcomes of social media. Importantly, this perspective also reminds us to consider proximal or more distal variables, how young people interact with other systems and, we are obliged to be cognisant of the bidirectionality of those interactions. Finally, when thinking about adaptive and maladaptive consequences of social media use, larger (government policy or platform developer ethical standards), abstract (societal values and attitudes), and sociohistorical systems (the changes that occur inside and outside the young person’s life over time) have a place in discussions.

Following the suicide of the Irish TD, Shane McEntee in 2012, a number of other high profile suicides, and the increase in abuse targeted at politicians through social media, an Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications was convened in early 2013 to examine the role of social media in public discourse. The committee chair, Tom Hayes TD said, in an interview with RTE, that “the media is in a different era now. It is very, very challenging and we need to control it…and put standards in place” (RTE, 2012). When proposing the Harmful and Malicious Electronic Communications Bill 2015, former Irish senator Lorraine Higgins said that social media, through which she had personally been subjected to abuse, had released “an unpleasant side of human nature that has been allowed fester because of the lack of clear legislation in this area” (Irish Times, 2015a). In the same op-ed, the senator continued, “the time has come to fight back and work to protect others online who might be more vulnerable and unable to take such abuse. Robust laws designed to protect citizens online are crucial”. In April of 2015, when former Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte introduced the Public Electronic Communications Networks (Improper Use) Bill, he proposed that it would now “make it an offence for a person to send or cause to be sent by means of public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or menacing in character” (Irish Times, 2015b). Clearly, Irish public representatives are aware of the potential of social media and the internet to cause offence. Equally clear is their stated desire to safeguard the interests and rights of Irish citizens through regulation and legislation. That said, since the advent of social media, successive governments have treaded softly in this area.

Given that there is a plethora of regulation, legislation and policy already in place to protect Irish citizens, and given that legislation is sometimes seen as a heavy handed approach to human behaviour, this light touch is perhaps a good thing. It has been suggested by Digital Rights Ireland, among others, that online communication be treated the same way as offline communication and therefore should be subject to the same laws and regulations as existing forms of communication. Indeed, in the courts, this is what has been happening. Public outcry and moral panic in the face of perceived online dangers is understandable, but there are laws in place to protect citizens from these dangers. Calls for legislation in the wake of tragedy or a fresh round of online abuse, while commendable, are reactive and fail to acknowledge that the laws which apply offline also apply online. At its core, social media is a modern form of communication and expression. So, it is to laws, regulations, and policy applicable to social media, concerning how people express themselves and how that expression is protected, that we first turn.

In any discussion around communication and expression, laws pertaining to freedom of speech should be considered. In the Irish context, citizens are afforded freedom of expression; that expression is constitutionally protected, and citizens are also protected from expression. In other words, within the constitution of Ireland, article 40.6.1.i states that the right of citizens to freely express their convictions and opinions is guaranteed by the state (Bunreacht na hEireann, 1937). Further, not only does the Constitution protect the citizens right of expression, but with Article 40.3.2., it also protects the citizen “as best it may from unjust attack (and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate) the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen.” Without a constitutional amendment, changing this article, introducing legislation which effects expression, would be difficult. Notwithstanding this, Ireland is also a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers” (ECHR, 1950). Additionally, with the passing of the Defamation Act 2009, and the replacing of separate torts for slander and libel with a tort of defamation, false statements made on the internet are now to be regarded libellous, and so defamation, whether committed in a letter, a newspaper, a website or on a social media platform, is defamation.

At times, online communication and expression is addressed specifically to an individual and, at times, this communication can cause the recipient to perceive personal insult. Of particular concern to Irish legislators, over the last few years, has been the issue of online harassment or “cyberbullying”. This concern has been prompted by a seeming increase in prevalence, high profile cases of public figures being harassed online and highly publicised teen suicides (Ciara Pugsley in Leitrim and Erin Gallagher in Donegal in 2012). Again, there have been calls for specific legislation to protect social media and internet users. The now predictable reaction of the political class blissfully ignores the fact that social media and online behaviour are covered by offline laws and regulations. It would also seem that those who call for regulation and penalty for those who misbehave online are either ignorant of the current legislation or, like Mr. Hayes (quoted above) would wish to control or restrict how people express themselves and how they communicate on line. Defining “cyberbullying” is also difficult and while the legal profession in Ireland has made an attempt, there are differences of opinion within Psychology and particularly Cyber-psychology as to whether the behaviour exists, as defined, and whether it is as prevalent as some of the self-report questionnaires say. Due to the difficulty in defining the behaviour, prevalence rates vary from 8.6% (Schenk & Fremouw, 2012) to an astounding 70% (www.nobullying.com, 2016); the variation in these rates being down to definition and methodology of data collection.

Bullying has been defined by Olweus (1993) as intentional, repeated aggression targeted at an individual who cannot defend them self. Crucially, in the Olweus definition, bullying is comprised of repeated aggression and there is a significant power imbalance between perpetrator and victim. When defining “Cyberbullying” the temptation has been to append “…using technology…” to the Olweus definition. However, certainly from a psychological perspective, there are numerous differences between face-to-face and online aggression. Relatively little is known about the motivations or goals of the cyberbully or the long term consequences to the cyberbullied. That said, existing legislation, Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (eISB, 2017), states that “Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence”. In addition to this legislation, in September of 2016, the Law Reform Commission (LRC) proposed new criminal offences and an oversight body to protect users of internet technology in Ireland. The commission was particularly interested in protection against “cyberbullying” and “revenge porn”. Firstly, the State legal advisory body proposed a legally binding “code of conduct” which would see the digital industry remove offensive material from the internet in a timely and timetabled way. Secondly, the LRC has proposed the establishment of an office of digital safety commissioner who would oversee implementation of the “code of conduct”. The LRC report, “Harmful Communications and Digital Safety”, stretching to 237 pages, also proposes a number of amendments to existing law; expanding the definition of harassment to include online activity, making “stalking” a specific offence and the expansion of the existing offence of sending threatening messages. As noted above though, harassment, “stalking” and sending threatening messages are already illegal, so it is hard to know the purpose of this report and these recommendations.

As yet, in Ireland, we have not formulated specific internet and social media legislation or regulation and, as can be seen for the above, there is little in the way of “joined up thinking.” The legal profession are content using existing offline legislation to prosecute online transgressions. From a policy standpoint, it would seem that our legislators are content to react to moral panic and public outcry on an ad hoc basis. Social media and the consequences of online misbehaviour provide a convenient whipping boy, a suitable scapegoat (apologies for mixing metaphors) which can be pointed to to confirm technological knowledge or to verify an understanding of the plight of the modern parents or young people. While speaking at the launch of the Citizens Assembly, for example, convened in late 2016 to discuss an amendment to the Irish constitution, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny pleaded with users of social media to reflect before interacting with the members of the assembly. Social media, he said, “has the Assembly within the reach and the sights of those with deeply held views. Regrettably, we live in a time when an opposing view is no longer seen simply as a diverse opinion, or a topic worthy of debate. Rather, we live in a time when diverse opinion has become something, or someone [sic], to be pitied, to be ridiculed, and indeed, virtually hounded”. The Assembly was being launched, deliberations had not yet begun, yet the Irish prime minister was bewilderingly calling for calm on social media. Tellingly though, in April 2014, the current government published “Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures”, an Irish national policy framework for children and young people up to 24 years. This framework purports to represent and co-ordinate an integration of all departmental and agency policy (local, national, interagency and cross departmental) as it pertains to the care and welfare of children and young people. Along with proposing a vision of rights, inclusion and support for young Irish people, the framework outlines five national outcomes targeting health and wellbeing, learning, protection, economic opportunity, and engagement. The phrase “Social media” is mentioned a total of five times in the framework document, and only then in the context of infrastructure and security.

There is undoubtedly a disconnect between what legislators say, what is necessary, and regulation. There are those, Digital Rights, the legal profession and some legislators, who feel that existing legislation which ensures protection of citizens, is sufficient. On the other hand, some legislators feel that strict legislation is required. It is difficult to pinpoint the reason for this disconnect. Perhaps, the fact that the internet and social media are so recent and that legislators do not fully understand their influences; this would seem unlikely. It is likely, that if the government were to introduce legislation curtailing expression, there would be a public backlash. It is therefore conceivable that within government there is no appetite for a fight; the current Irish government is a minority government, further weakening its position. One could be cynical and assume that the government are unable to legislate something they do not fully understand; it is unwilling to impose legislation on what citizens now consider an entitlement; following a number of bruising battle with the public, there is no appetite for a fight it would surely lose. That said, developing interventions, policy and legislation which addresses online behaviours or which best protects the rights of citizens requires information and knowledge which will come from research. For example, at present in Ireland, there are no policy guidelines in place to protect young social media users from the possible negative effects of the media. Further, there is no research framework in place. So we find ourselves in a position where researchers in Ireland are exploring social on an ad hoc and disjointed basis and “Brezzie”, a television personality, is driving policy around social media and mental health.

From this brief exploration of the legislation and policy pertaining to the internet and social media, which the Irish government, public representatives, government departments have proposed and imposed over the last few years, the picture which emerges is complex. The area itself, particularly social media, is relatively new and not only are young users coming to terms with its use and effects, but parents, teachers and our legislators are also struggling with the media. The leader of the Irish government and the ministers responsible for technology, communication, and the protection of young people are from an era when the internet and social media did not exist. This has lead to an underestimation of the media and its capabilities and has prompted reactions like that of senators Higgins, Rabbitte and former government minister Ruairí Quinn, when he called the internet “a playground for anonymous back-stabbers” (Irish Times, 2012c ). The majority of young Irish emerging adults now see social media as part of their lives; 96% of Irish 15-35 year olds own a smart phone (Thinkhouse, 2014) and according to research, some spend up to 6 hours per day connected to the internet via some device. Social media clearly plays an important part in the lives of a large proportion of the population, yet in the last decade, successive governments have left the social media world untouched, from a regulatory perspective. For those who advocate for free speech and freedom of expression, this is welcome. However, for the government, parents and educators naiveté drives moral panic, which in turn drives flawed legislation and policy.

References

Bunreacht na hÉireann (Constitution of Ireland) Enacted in 1937.

ECHR. (1950). Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as Amended) (ECHR) Art 10, 1950.

Maybe it’s the company I keep online, but every day there seems to be more and more posts appearing on my timelines about health, fitness and wellbeing. On any given day, when I look at my timelines and newsfeeds, I note that many of my friends are sharing the fact that they are running (from jogging to marathons), doing crossfit, attending the gym or a personal trainer and eating healthily. It is true that some people in my social media echo chamber are “of a certain age” and because we are being constantly reminded of our mortality, have begun to take better care of ourselves. There is also the “algorithm” debate/conspiracy; that searches which I make influence the information which appears when I am on social media. But, let’s assume, for a minute, that my “Friends” list is a quasi representative sample; are people turning to tech and social media to help them with their health and wellbeing goals and, if they are, is there evidence to support this approach.

There are countless apps available (there are over 13,000 health-related apps in the Apple App Store, here are 39 of them! And yes, I know I said “countless”) which allow users to connect and track performance. There are applications which, along with providing health and medical information, present objective anatomical information. Even the most basic applications for mobile devices allow users to measure sleep, diet, exercise, weight, mood, medication and numerous bodily functions. Additionally, realising the importance of a motivational and support component to the process, quite a few of these applications have reward systems (badges, points or counters) and functionality where collected data can be shared on social media. These apps can be helpful for those trying to get into shape, with even simple smartphone apps helping to significantly increase physical activity (Glynn et al, 2014; Walsh et al, 2016). With the data the applications collect, workouts can be tracked, goals can be set and progress can be monitored. Health psychologists tell us that monitoring, planning and goal setting are all important factors in changing behaviours. Further, if users engage on the social level, interactions with friends can trigger action and the support received from others can help motivation (Ba & Wang, 2013).

Monitoring our health and maintaining healthy behaviour electronically is not new; we have been doing it since the 70’s. Developments and advancements in technology and the rise in popularity of social media, in the last decade, has created a new paradigm, though – the intersection between the Quantified Self and social media. It’s all well and good using apps and mobile devices to monitor and maintain behaviour, but when we go online, or when we interact with others, or click “Share” and our new, changing behaviour is proclaimed to our social circle, something different is happening. From my own limited experiences, participating in Twitter chats and “Liking” the Facebook page of my local Parkrun has already linked me to like-minded people; novice, amateur fun-runners. Getting updates on times, event information, and other runners has inspired and motivated me. Checking my timings, aiming to set a new “PB” and achieving that, has given me a sense of achievement and I feel good!

So far, research into the reasons why people use self-tracking digital devices for health is limited. Research into why people share their health, fitness and wellbeing information on social media, even more so. In the U.S. The Pew Research Center have found that 21% of the adults surveyed report monitoring their health (weight, diet, exercise, blood pressure or medical symptoms) using technology; a medical device (8%), app or tool on a mobile device (7%), computerised spread sheet (5%) and website or online tool (1%). Further, 20% of respondents had downloaded an app to a mobile device to manage and monitor their health behaviour (weight, diet and exercise). Eventhough a recent study has found that wearing a device which monitors and provides feedback on physical activity may not offer an advantage over standard behavioral weight loss approaches and may result in less weight loss over two years (Jakicic et al, 2016), benefits to wearing these devices have been uncovered. It has been shown, for instance, that aside from the perceived usefulness of the equipment, self-regulation, social motives and enjoyment explain why some people use these trackers (Straiger et al, 2016).

It is likely that those who use this technology will, in some cases, share their information of social media; you are encouraged to do so. So far, social media is loaded with inspirational images. Pictures of fit, healthy, active, thin, attractive people running and training effortlessly, eating picture perfect meals abound. Motivational “before and after” stories appear regularly and, while much of this content is intended to inspire, it can have a negative effect. One can’t help but compare oneself to these “fitstagrammers” and, while it has been shown that “fitspiration” images have a positive effect on motivation to pursue healthy goals, these images can have a negative effect on body image (Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2015) and they can decrease body satisfaction (Benton & Karazsia, 2015). Moreover, Facebook social comparison has been negatively associated with subjective wellbeing (Gerson et al, 2016).

Like with most things to do with social media, it is early days, research is in its infancy, care needs to be taken and we need balance in our discussion around the subject. Care needs to be taken when taking inspiration from people online. As we discovered last year, with the Essena O’Neill saga, it is very easy to set up a blog or an Instagram account; near perfect pictures are easy to produce; it’s very easy to dispense advice; it’s very easy to make recommendations. It’s not so easy to qualify as a dietician, sports psychologist or for that matter, a mental health professional. And that Insta-Life may not be what it seems.

The intersection between technology, the quantified self and social media is exciting, though; not just for users, but for research. Extant theories around reward, punishment, motivation, comparison, etc are going to be able to explain a lot, but research on this truly modern paradigm could also shed new light on human behavior.

At present, I am conducting a qualitative study on young people’s opinions of the consequences of their social media experiences. Without going into detail, participants were asked to think deeply about the implications of social media use and suggest arguments for and against the proposition that “Use of the internet and social media has psychological benefits”. Participants have made propositions and I am currently categorising these into positive and negative “Societal”, “Social &Interpersonal” and “Cognitive” arguments. There are literally thousands of arguments and, while there is some repetition, young people’s thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of social media use are interesting and imaginative.

I have been particularly intrigued by the suggestion by some participants that social media provides a positive social and interpersonal advantage to those with severe mental illness. If I am honest, this was not an area I had given much thought to and, certainly, when one looks to the research or opinion in this area, there is very little written.

Research which examines the use of the internet and social media by those with severe mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, depression etc) begins with findings that those with mental illness use computers and that they have similar attitudes to technology as others (Salzar & Burks, 2003). As expected, reasons for internet use among those with mental illnesses vary from shopping, telecommunication, information seeking and news (Cook et al, 2005). Further, it has been shown that, along with taking online courses and seeking information on medication, some participate in online skills, therapy or support interventions aimed at their community (Kaplan et al, 2014). Some with severe mental illness have taken to blogging their experiences (www.theinsideoutman.wordpress.com, Fiona Kennedy’s fantastic http://sunnyspellsandscatteredshowers.org/ and an excellent essay on sharing one’s severe mental illness online here). Moreover, it has been shown that those with severe mental illness also use various social media. While 74% of U.S. adults may have at least one social media account, there is evidence which shows that those living with severe mental illness use the internet and social media at significantly lower rates than the general population (Miller et al, 2015).

In studies, social media use relates to negative outcomes for some users; impaired subjective wellbeing (Kross et al, 2013), loneliness and depression (O’Keefe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011) and social anxiety (Caplan, 2007). However, there are also numerous studies which show relationships between social media and positive consequences. Social media users enjoy the experience and find it useful (Lin & Lu , 2011), it helps them maintain relationships (Ellison et al, 2007) and it has been associated with lower levels of loneliness (Ryan & Xenos, 2011), enhanced self-esteem (Barker, 2009) and participation in community (Hampton et al, 2009). Similarly, for those with severe mental illness, social media use has been shown to have positive health-related outcomes. Miller et al (2015) found, in a study of 80 participants with schizophrenia, that 47% reported having a social media account, with 27% reporting daily social media use. Social media users said that platforms helped them with interacting and socializing with friends and family. Additionally, Gowen et al (2011) reported, in a study of 140 young adults with severe mental illness, that 93% used social media, 94% believed that social media use helped them feel less isolated (communicating with othes, making new friends, etc.). Although some social media users with severe mental illness have reported that social media activity correlated with increased psychiatric symptoms (Mittal et al, 2015) or that reading about their illness increased symptoms, there is evidence to show greater socialisation and connectedness (Alvarez-Jiminez et al, 2015) and community integration (Snethen & Zook, 2016).

Despite the fact that there is little research in this area, it is clear that those living with severe mental illness use social media and that the motivation to do so is no different from anyone else. Social media not only provides information and a connection to professionals, but importantly, it provides a connection to peers. The communication environment is asynchronous, it does not require one to respond verbally and there can be a degree on anonymity or at least, some control in how one presents one’s self. Time and again, in discussions around severe mental illness, the issue of stigma is raised. Could social media be a boon for those living with mental illness? Perhaps, because the stigma associated with mental illness might be less pronounced online than in face-to-face communication, those with severe mental illness can interact more freely with individuals from other social groups.

Given the inconsistency of findings arising from social media research, it is necessary at times, to take a step back and consider the different social media experiences which young people have. Much social media research simply requires participants, when undertaking research, to be members of a social media platform, to use “social media” or to have a social media profile. While gathering this data is useful, and correlating it to various outcomes informs , it tells us little of the social media experience and the nuances of user interactions with the media and other users. A young person can, for instance, be a member of Snapchat but, is she merely “snapping” or is she serious about her Snapchat game, applying filters and compiling “streaks”? One can be a member of Facebook without ever completing a “status update”, uploading photographs of one’s food or indeed, commenting on a friend’s post. Can’t one Instagram (Yes! I’m using it as a verb) to promote one’s blog or just to look at the pretty pictures?

Without examining outcomes of the interaction with specific social media platforms, it is clear that there are two key types of social media interaction; active and passive (Burke, Marlow & Lento, 2010). Active, directed social media use, or the production of content, has been described as the interaction on a site between a user and another friend. In this interaction, one friend identifies the other and communicates with them directly or posts a comments. Active social media use could also include positing comments or “likes” to pages with which the user has no direct, intimate relationship. Active social media use can be imagined as purely communication for communication’s sake, or as it has been, as a means of identity expression, both self- and social- (Thorbjørnsen, Pedersen, & Nysveen, 2007). However, as young adult social media users maintain large networks of friends and acquaintances across multiple social media, direct, targeted communication is not always possible. Interactions are restricted to viewing aggregated status updates, tagged photos, snaps and posts. These interactions involve the consumption of content, exclusive of exchange and direct interaction.

Active social media use, in the form of one-to-one communication, has been implicated in reduced loneliness and depression (Shaw & Grant, 2002), it has predicted relationship strength (Gilbert & Karahalios, 2009) and using social network sites is a positive and significant predictor of people’s social capital and civic and political participatory behaviours, both online and offline (Gil de Zúñiga, Jung & Valenzuela, 2012). Active microblogging has been correlated with elevated student engagement and higher grades (Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011). However, passive social media use, online behaviour that allows the user to consume and observe content or “lurk”, is the predominant social media activity, yet there is little research which differentiates this type of interaction from active social media use.

Concern is often expressed over the fact that young people are using social media increasingly and in increasing numbers. And while research tells us that usage has an effect and that, at times, these effects can be detrimental to our well being, research does not tell us whether this use or whether these effects emerge from dynamic exchanges and direct communication or from passive observation and the reaction to what we observe. Actively interacting and communicating on social media has to have a completely different outcome than passively allowing content to wash over us. It is therefore important that, when looking at social media research or when reading about the effects of social media use on young people, that we scrutinise the nature of the interaction. Further, results which emerge from research which does not reveal the type of interaction, is weakened.

Globally, there are over two billion users of social media. With increasing access to the internet in emerging countries and the push by internet service provider to capture these new markets, it is likely that this figure will increase exponentially in the coming years. Already, internet use and smartphone ownership rates in these countries is rapidly increasing. With increased access to web services, in the industrialised west, social media is reaching saturation point, with over 76% of internet users across forty countries using social media (Pew Research, 2016). In Ireland, smartphone ownership among young adults has reached 98%, with 98% of these using social media through internet enabled devices.

Given how pervasive social media has become, it is unsurprising that this area has piqued the interest to researchers and academics. Within the last decade over 10,000 journal articles have been published on the subject (Meshi, Tamir, Heekeren, 2015). Interestingly, in this nascent, complex area of study, research has a narrow focus. Investigators concentrate on a phenomenon of interest, gauge the level of social media use or membership of a social networking site and draw correlations between the two. Studies of this nature, say linking social media use or membership of Facebook, to types of personality or to various emotional or behavioural responses proliferate, along with the widespread use of self-report questionnaire as the means of measurement.

Despite the fact that the “big picture” has not been examined in any great depth, fractured research of this nature makes it difficult to discern the wood from the trees. Studies reveal numerous contradictions and without a framework to guide research, results of social media studies will continue to confound.

Notwithstanding the amount of research which is being and has been conducted into social media, one area of research has received little attention; an area which could help to explain some of the cognitive processes involved in the social media experiences and indeed, the neural systems underpinning these processes. When fully embraced, this are of research will undoubtedly provide nuance to our burgeoning understanding of our social media experiences. Already, biological-social media studies have produced some intriguing findings.

It is, as yet, unclear as to why levels of participation among social media users vary. However, a possible biological basis for this variability has been uncovered using fMRI. Kanai, Bahrami, Roylance & Rees (2012) have discovered that quantitative differences in the number of friends one has on Facebook predict grey matter density in the right superior temporal sulcus, the left middle temporal gyrus and the entorhinal cortex. Further, voxel-based morphometry has shown that lonely individuals have less gray matter in the left posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS: Kanai, Bahrami, Duchaine, Janik, Banissy, & Rees, 2012). These regions of the brain have previously been implicated in perception and associative memory. Kanai et al also discovered a correlation between grey matter density of the amygdala and online and offline social network size. Notably, Von der Heide, Vyas & Olsen (2014) have shown, across fMRI analyses, that individual differences in social network size were consistently related to structural and functional differences in the left and right amygdala, and the right entorhinal/ventral anterior temporal cortex. These findings have led the authors to surmise that the size of participant’s online social network is closely linked to regions of the brain implicated in social cognition.

As social media is often characterised as a means by which we manage our reputations and the impressions we make on others, researchers have examined whether positive social, self-relevant feedback, concerning one’s character, is linked with the neural processing of gains in ventral striatum (Meshi, Morawetz, & Heekeren, 2013). These researchers hypothesized a relationship between the way the brain processes self-relevant gains in reputation and one’s degree of Facebook use. fMRI data was recorded while participants received gains in reputation and it was found that when participants responded to gains in reputation, reward-related activity in the left nucleus accumbens predicted Facebook use. Further analysis showed that Facebook use primarily explained nucleus accumbens activity.

Finally, and as “Facebook Addiction” seems to be an issue concerning parents and certainly the media, a study by Turel, He, Xue, Xiao & Bechara (2014) sheds new light on this very modern phenomenon. Previous studies into addictive behaviours have shown that these behaviours violate the homeostasis of impulsive (amygdala-striatal) and inhibitory (prefrontal cortex) brain systems. Turel et al examined whether these systems sub-serve Facebook “addiction”. Interestingly, the addiction-like symptoms of technology-related “addictions” share some neural features with substance and gambling addictions. Significantly, however, they also differ from such addictions in both their brain etiology and possibly pathogenesis, as related to abnormal functioning of the inhibitory-control brain system.

The studies represent the very few which examine neural correlates of social media use; this important area of research is very much in its infancy. As we learn more about the antecedents and consequence of social media use, and as we gain a more holistic picture of our social media experience, it is also important that we understand the effects that regular social media use could be having on our behavioural and neural development, and functioning. While we should be cautious interpreting the results of studies like these, the significance of this research is particularly relevant to the development of adolescents and young adults who use this technology regularly and have transitioned through developmental milestones in the company of social media. It is the explicit intention of social media developers to encourage us to spend more and more time engaged with this technology, so it is essential that we understand the differences and changes, if there are any, in the social media user’s functioning.

A word of caution

There is confusion as to what neuroscience tells us about awareness and behaviour. Neuroscience doesn’t provide a satisfactory account of the conditions that are sufficient for awareness and behaviour and a neuroscientific explanation of these phenomena and how they arise, is incomplete. The idea that neuroscience accounts for these phenomena is neuroscientism.

The studies mentioned in this essay give us a snapshot of the brains of the participants. It would be an error to extrapolate behaviour, awareness, consciousness, intelligence, emotion etc. from an fMRI image or indeed, from a researcher’s interpretation of that image. Further, it would be incorrect to assume cause and effect.

In a previous post I spoke about the fact that some young users are migrating from Facebook to different types of social media. This news comes as no surprise to analysts or indeed young social media users. The fact users are migrating in such numbers (see below) has even prompted one analyst to opine that “Facebook appears to already be moving past the maturity stage into the decline stage” (Gunelius, 2015)…steady on!!!

I have been wondering about the possible causes for this migration and have thought that maybe, privacy, permanence or parents could be the problem. But maybe it’s something else. Could it also be that the thoughts, feelings and behaviours which result from our use of Facebook are encouraging us to seek reward elsewhere?

In our research on the negative consequences of FoMO we have found that, among other negative consequences, loneliness emerges as a significant negative outcome. At its most basic, loneliness is sadness associated with being isolated, removed from intimates, being abandoned or rejected. Given these types of descriptors, it is hard to imagine that a negative consequence of one’s social media experiences is “loneliness”, considering that one is just a click away from friends and family and that, in the main, very few of them reject or abandon the user.

Perhaps another definition for “loneliness” or an investigation into the causes and correlates of loneliness would shed light on why some social media users describe their experience this way.

Loneliness or perceived isolation can be viewed either as a single entity or a multifaceted conceptualisation of the emotional reactions to the absence of others. It is a temporary state for some, but a chronic condition for others. While temporary loneliness can be buffered by social support, the chronically lonely are more likely to be high in negative affect and low in positive affect, withdrawing socially and displaying a lack of trust in others (Ernst & Cacioppo, 1999). Furthermore, chronic loneliness has been associated with depression and hostility.

Kraus et al (1993) see loneliness as a direct consequence of our cognitive appraisals (determined by one’s social network, situation and person factors) of whether interpersonal needs are being met. Studies have shown that numerous “person” factors, including pessimism and low optimism, correlate with loneliness, which in turn has been strongly correlated with low happiness (Booth, Bartlett, & Bohnsack, 1992) and low life satisfaction (Riggio, Warring, & Trockmorton, 1993). Damsteegt (1992) suggested that lonely individuals display feelings of alienation, isolation and bitterness, and that these feelings combine to form poor social networks. Additionally, Krauss et al. (1993) propose that, for interpersonal needs to be met successfully, social provisions of attachment, reassurance of worth, social integration, guidance and reliable alliances have to be satisfied. It may be that Granovetter’ s (1982) “weak ties”, provided by Facebook, are not quite meeting these requirement or satisfying users interpersonal needs.

When our participants described “loneliness” as an outcome of their social media experiences, I would guess that they were describing a more transient and impermanent state. If this is the case, ironically, the social support provided by social media can buffer against these feelings. Indeed, Kim et al (2015) have shown that loneliness can be a cause and a consequence of social media use.

Over the last few years active Facebook use has declined (falling by 9% in 2014), with social media users migrating to platforms (Instagram, Snapchat, Whatsapp, Youtube etc) where they can actively share content with closed groups. Could young users be avoiding loneliness or looking to alleviate it elsewhere? On these newer platforms, social provisions are being met and communication occurs between attached, integrated and reliable groups. These strong, closed, intimate groups assure and reward and our interpersonal needs are being met.

If Facebook are to stem the migration, addressing loneliness could be the place to start.